<p style="text-align: justify;"># 1 </p><p>Through millions of years of evolution ,men and women evolved different survival and reproduction strategies. As time went by, the masculine genes that made it to the next generation were those belonging to the most ambitious, aggressive and competitive men. </p><p> </p><p># 2 </p><p>As time went by, the feminine genes that made it to the next generation belonged to women who were submissive caretakers. </p><p> </p><p>#3 </p><p>The result of these different survival strategies - so the theory goes - is that men have been programmed to be ambitious and competitive, and to excel in politics and business, whereas women have tended to move out of the way and dedicate their lives to raising children. </p><p> </p><p># 4 (Counterargument for # 3) </p><p>There are many species of animals, such as elephants and bonobo chimpanzees, in which the dynamics between dependent females and competitive males results in a matriarchal society. </p><p> </p><p># 5 </p><p>Sapiens are relatively weak animals, whose advantage rests in their ability to cooperate in large numbers. If so, we should expect that dependent women, even if they are dependent on men, would use their superior social skills to cooperate among themselves, while outmaneuvering(술책으로이기다) and manipulating the aggressive, autonomous ans self-centred men. </p><p> </p><p># 6 </p><p>How did it happen that in the one species whose success depends above all on cooperation, individuals who are supposedly less cooperative (men) control individuals who are supposedly more cooperative (women)? At present, we have no good answer. Maybe the common assumptions are just wrong. Maybe males of the species Homo sapiens are characterised not by physical strength, aggressiveness and competitiveness, but rather by superior social skills and a greater tendency to cooperate. We just don't know. </p>
<!-- -->
